Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/6072/2022 of SRI VIVEK REVI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010295222022 NC: 2026:KHC:53020 CRL.P No. 6072 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6072 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VIVEK REVI, S/O DR. CK REVI, AGED ABOUT 43
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6072 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. VIVEK REVI,
S/O DR. CK REVI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT OLD 74, NEW 54,
POES GARDEN,
CHENNAI-600086,
TAMIL NADU.
ALSO AT VARUNA RESIDENCY,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
2.
SMT. DHAVAMANI,
W/O SOLAIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
R/AT 52/6, 2ND FLOOR,
NEAR MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE,
DOOPANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560008.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-
A) AND FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (ANNEXURE-B) BOTH
DATED 11.04.2022 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO
IN
CR.NO.80/2022
REGISTERED
BY
RESPONDENT
NO.1
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ACMM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU
FOR
THE
OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE
UNDER
SECTIONS 506 AND 376 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State.
2. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the complaint (Annexure-A) and FIR (Annexure-B) both dated 11.04.2022 and all further proceedings thereto in Crime No.80/2022 registered by respondent No.1, pending on the file
HC-KAR
of X Additional CMM Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 376 of IPC and to pass such other order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant lodged a complaint dated 11.04.2022, produced as Annexure-A, alleging that the petitioner subjected her to a sexual act and threatened her with dire consequences, while referring to the earlier incident and the complaint lodged in respect thereof. Having received this complaint, the police have registered the FIR in terms of Annexure-B.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier also a complaint was given on 21.02.2017 as per Annexure-C making similar allegations. Based on the earlier complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 02.03.2017 as per Annexure-D and also statement of her husband as per Annexure-D1 and also statement was made by her in terms of Annexure-E, wherein prayer was made that false complaint be closed immediately and her husband be
HC-KAR
pardoned for his mistake and for all the trouble he has caused to the police and others spoiling their name. Having considered that a false complaint was filed at the instance of her husband, no proceedings was initiated and NCR was issued. The learned counsel would contend that now the present complaint is filed making the similar allegations. Hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process and police based on Annexure-A, issued Annexure-B FIR and it is a clear case of abuse of process in registering the case against the petitioner and hence the same requires to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State submits that earlier complaint as per Annexure-C is not disputed. On enquiry, the earlier Investigating Officer made the statement that in view of settlement arrived between the parties, the same was not pursued and also NCR was issued and now the present complaint is filed. The learned counsel would submit that the police have issued the FIR in view of the allegations made in the complaint and they were not aware of the earlier
HC-KAR
complaint and cognizable offences are alleged in the complaint and hence, case is registered.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and also considering the material on record particularly, Annexure-C and also the statement of the complainant as per Annexure-D, she has categorically stated that the complaint was given at the instance of her husband. Annexure D1 discloses that her husband also made the statement before the police and her statement is also recorded in terms of Annexure-E, wherein she has requested the police to pardon her husband. Now reiterating the very similar allegations, the present complaint as per Annexure-A is filed. When such complaint was filed earlier, the same was not persuaded by the very same complainant and also declared that the earlier complaint was filed at the instance of her husband, since differences were arisen between her and her husband. In the present complaint, allegation was made in respect of the incident of the year 2016 dated 30.04.2016 and present complaint is filed on 11.04.2022, that too after six
HC-KAR
years and the same is entertained by the police and hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process and if this Court fails to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it will lead to a miscarriage of justice. Hence, the petitioner has made out the ground to quash the proceedings.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.80/2022, is hereby quashed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4